Congress vs. Parliment

[Odin]

Discuss...

[Az]

not in all euro-countries, there is a percentage-wise representation. I like the German model the best. There are both nation-wide representatives, and state-wide majority elections.

[Shi Huangdi]

I prefer a US style COngressional system because it is more favorable to seperation of powers- look at European countries and see how many times in Parliamentary systems the PM loses a vote on one of there bills or has a bill passed that the PM doesn't like. Periods in which one party dominates the House, Senate, and Presidency like we have now are rare.

[Az]

You're right, Shi. The pure parliamentary democracy is way too unstable. One can see it clearly in Israel for example.

[chequita guevara]

I'd like a mixed system, with the seperation of powers we have, but with proportional representation in the legislature.

[Nubclear]

I prefer the Peoples Congress of Soviets, because it sounds MUCH better.

[DanS]

One thing to note is that the congressional system is incredibly conservative. In essence, an idea has to have 60% or more support for it to be instituted. Or it has to trade horses for that kind of support. Few initiatives, much less radical initiatives, can gain that kind of support.

The US has been blessed with people who have negotiated in good faith for what they want. Hasn't always worked, such as in the Civil War.

[Odin]

I prefer the Parlimentary sysetm since it is based on which party is most in tune with the people. Here in the US it seems people don't care about the issues, they vote for the people who speak up a storm and then do nothing in office.

[Sava]

the US system is fine, although I would reorganize the entire government altogether

[Az]

Odin, "in tune with it's people" isn't always right. The government should do what's best for the people not what the people want. I've always thought that this is why we elect them. So they can make more informed and thought over decisions.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
The pure parliamentary democracy is way too unstable. One can see it clearly in Israel for example.

Surely you mean to say Italy or the Neatherlands instead?

[Az]

they're great examples too. I am just speaking of the one more familiar to me. ( esp, lately. Elections every 2 years? )

[Seeker]

Parliamentary, with the Head of State seperate from the Executive branch.

Personally, I would prefer it if political parties were banned and everybody had to run as an independent.

Then we could drop the polite fiction that parties actually have an 'ideology' and everyone could settle down to deal making for their constituents.

Also, parliamentary voting would actually mean something in majority governments.

Also, it would force people to actual research the policies of the people they vote for, or not vote.

I would rather someone not vote at all than vote for a guy representing your riding on a host of issues, while only basing on their decision on the fact that it says 'Lib' next to his name on the ballot...

Oh, and if government is really about letting people who know better than us make decisions for us, why don't you just bring the technocracy/oligarchy out into the open?

Get all the 'leading citizens' of banking, industry, media, and academia together, have them appoint a 'Senate', and then have that Senate appoint its replacements ever so often (8-10 years).

Now that I think about there might be advantages to such a system:
a) meritocracy: If you want a say, you've got to succeed.
b) Continuity: they can carry out long-term projects
c) No more private/public discord: the idea of a conflict between the 'Establishment' and the government would be absurd.
d) great for science!

This was kind of the system of the Venetian Republic, which lasted 1300 years.